I assumed your posting was in reference to the Stewart clip. Under that assumption, your examples are off point: open marriage and condoms (your example) are not equivalent in the way man's ass in a man's face is equivalent to man's ass in a woman's face (Stewart's example).*

If, however, your posting was a general thought piece (on morality, relativism and how personal bias and experience influence your viewpoint) inspired by Hepola's posting, then I suppose we have nothing to debate because we're not discussing the same thing.

And, yes, Stewart exaggerates to make a point but usually the underpinnings are sound.

*Wow, who'd have thought I'd ever have cause to write those words?

The examples cited by Jon Stewart were logical equivalents (hence the hypocrisy). The ones cited by you were not.

It helps to watch the video, if you haven't done so already -- Stewart draws the parallels pretty clearly (more clearly than Hepola does in her brief posting).

Aside: I'm not a fan of videos without transcripts. Videos make it more obvious that I'm at my desk not working.

Do you think the United States should -- or should not -- close this prison and move some of the prisoners to U.S. prisons?

That's two questions, not one. It's a terrible survey question.

• You could be in favor of closing Guantanamo but not want prisoners in the U.S.
• You could be in favor of closing Guantanamo but not want prisoners in U.S. prisons.
• You could be in favor of closing Guantanamo but not want prisoners in U.S. prisons in your state (which is probably how many people read it).

Choice is good when you have it and bad when someone else has it. Of course, you'll choose responsibly and your reasons are good but someone else...

So-called prolifers have done a better job of framing the issue than pro-choicers have (Who wouldn't want to be "for life?" Much more catchy than "pro-choice."). And people against reproductive choice have done a fantastic job of nipping away at Roe v. Wade (from ending Medicaid funding, preventing military women from getting abortions, enacting notification laws and waiting periods, mandating ultrasounds, mandating specifically-worded pamphlets, and enacting local restrictions that have driven providers out of the state --today's Roe isn't the Roe of 1973).

The thing is, many people view each of these threats to Roe individually as common-sense or not-so-bad, without considering the actual effects of how these laws and restrictions work together to completely undermine Roe.

If voters thought about how these "common-sense" laws would affect them or people they love and trust, they might think twice about them -- you or someone you know might need to make a choice and find you have no options.*

*There are any number of reasons someone who considers herself pro-life might choose to have an abortion. That would be another, much longer post.

Conservative commentators had a chance to make a real point attacking the Democratic Speaker of the House and instead went for cheap jabs about Botox.

But, they sort of had to go the cheap jab route, because they're in the same boat as Pelosi with their own torture double-talk.

Or it could be that Republicans have completely forgotten how to have substantive debate.

That's not clear at all.

I believe Sarah Palin would have been a poor vice-president and a horrendous president (heaven forbid...).

But there are a lot of reasons McCain lost, and Palin is the least of those reasons--the McCain of 2000 who appealed to independents was not the McCain who ran in 2008, the implosion of and eroding trust in the Republican Party, the rapid economic meltdown was an election turning point, and Barack Obama being an inspirational figure may be the top four reasons.

Part of the damage done by Palin was less about Palin herself and more about McCain--his selection of her seemed such an obvious and cynical ploy, and it brought McCain's judgment into question.

But Palin, for all her faults, re-invigorated McCain's campaign.

Did Palin hurt McCain? Some. Did she hurt him more than she helped him? I doubt it.

Do you believe that reproductive issues (and gay marriage) amount to "EVERY major moral teaching of the Catholic Church?"

that these CPAC-ers were correct about Obama (ha!).

The voters still overwhelmingly chose the Commie foreigner over your guy, John McCain. Suck it, CPAC-ers!

"Oh, you're Pro Criminalization, I see. How many years do you think a teenager who has an abortion should get?" I love the resulting sputtering and backtracking and evading.

I'm actually hearing less and less sputtering about this. The answer to "who do we criminalize?" is: the doctor.

It also plays into the notion that women who have abortions are just dupes who if they thought about it more (waiting period laws) or saw a sonogram (sonogram laws) or read a pamphlet (read this first laws) they'd change their fickle little minds. As though deciding to have an abortion (and actually making it to a clinic when 90% of U.S. counties don't even have a clinic) were something decided on a whim.

It's great for people to find common ground to reduce the need for abortion, but the notion that this is some new, novel "third way" doesn't mesh with reality.

Reproductive rights supporters already supported better access to family planning and support structures for women and children. The only new part is that some pro-lifers are now adopting the idea.

small.